Ask Dr. Drew - Attorney Tom Renz Alleges A COVID-19 “Murder-For-Money Scheme” & Sues EcoHealth Alliance - Discussing w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew

Episode Date: May 23, 2023

Attorney Tom Renz has made some of the most alarming allegations of the pandemic: a “COVID-19 murder-for-money scheme” involving fake nurses and complicit hospitals. He is representing a hospital pharmacist who allegedly witnessed medical malpractice, and also filed a lawsuit against EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak by alleging they are “responsible for the injury and/or death of the Plaintiffs due to their creation and subsequent release of SARS-CoV-2 from the Wuhan Laboratories in China.” “Remember when called me a conspiracy theorist because I said they were killing COVID-19 patients in the hospitals?” says Tom Renz. He joins Ask Dr. Drew LIVE with Dr. Kelly Victory to share info on his bombshell lawsuits. Thomas Renz is an attorney from Ohio. Find out more at https://renz-law.com and follow him at https://twitter.com/RenzTom 「 SPONSORED BY 」 • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew • BIRCH GOLD - Don’t let your savings lose value. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Claim your free, no obligation info kit from Birch Gold at https://birchgold.com/drew • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get an extra discount with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT the SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 WITH DR. KELLY VICTORY 」 Dr. Kelly Victory MD is a board-certified trauma and emergency specialist with over 30 years of clinical experience. She served as CMO for Whole Health Management, delivering on-site healthcare services for Fortune 500 companies. She holds a BS from Duke University and her MD from the University of North Carolina. Follow her at https://earlycovidcare.org and https://twitter.com/DrKellyVictory. 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 For over 30 years, Dr. Drew has answered questions and offered guidance to millions through popular shows like Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Dr. Drew On Call (HLN), Teen Mom OG (MTV), and the iconic radio show Loveline. Now, Dr. Drew is opening his phone lines to the world by streaming LIVE from his home studio. Watch all of Dr. Drew's latest shows at https://drdrew.tv Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome, everybody. Today should be a very interesting conversation. Of course, Dr. Kelly Victory joins me just after the opening few minutes of the show. We have attorney Tom Rents in here. He has made some alarming allegations. We're going to get into the depths of it. He is quoted as having said, remember when you called me a conspiracy theorist because I said they were killing COVID patients. In other words, he is reminding us that what yesterday was a conspiracy theory, a year or two later becomes just simply the facts. Mr. Renz is an attorney from Ohio. You can follow him at Renz, R-E-N-Z-law.com. Also, TomRenz.com. And you can subscribe to his sub stack at TomRenz.substack.com. Again, that Renz is R-E-N-Z.

And, of course, Twitter is Renz, is the inverse, the inverse, RenzTom, without any space or dots or anything, R-E-N-Z-T-O-M. And hopefully we'll have a chance. I see a lot of you out on Twitter spaces. Of course, we're monitoring the restream and the Rumble Rants as well, and hopefully I'll have a chance for some calls today. So let's get right to it. Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre. A psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction,

fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor for f**k's sake. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want to help stop it, I can help. I got a lot to say.

I got a lot more to say. you can spend thousands of dollars trying to look a few years younger or you can skip all of that hassle and go with what works genucell skincare genucell is the secret to better skin in fact you might have witnessed the astonishing effects of genuCell during a recent unplanned moment on our show when just a little GenuCell XV restored my skin within minutes right before your eyes. That's how fast these products work. I know I'm a snob about the products I use on my face. Everybody knows it. Every time I go to the dermatologist's office, they're just rows and rows of different creams.

And then when I get to the counter, they're overpriced. All kinds of products that you can all find at GenuCell.com. Susan and I love GenuCell so much, we've created our own bundles so you can try our favorite anti-wrinkle treatments, correcting serums, and ultra-retinol creams. Just go to GenuCell.com slash Drew. Use the code Drew for an extra discount and free priority shipping. Again, that is GenuCell.com slash Drew. G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash D-R-E-W. And we are back. We have attorney Tom Renzen here in just a second. I'll give Susan a chance to speak to something that just happened to her a few minutes ago as it pertains to Genucel

and thereby it happened to me as well. You know, I would like you to say it. You can't hear you. Can't hear you. There you are. I was looking at the ingredients at the dermatologist's office. Today, just an hour ago. All the products that I used to buy, and they were all the same chemicals inside. The exact same.

So I've realized that you can get your Bacuchiol, you can get your vitamin C, you can get your hyaluronic acid, you can get your lactic acid, you can get your bakuchiol you can get your vitamin c you can get your hyaluronic acid you can get your lactic acid you can get your retinol and it's a fraction of the price so get my bundle everybody it's a good deal so more importantly thank you jenny cell from me because she didn't come home with a ridiculous amount of expensive creams that you can get the exact same thing there that would make my skin look even better than it does, and I couldn't find a thing.

Yeah. And so you were saying for the price of a single product, you'd get one of our bundles. Yeah, I can get the whole package. All right, so there you go. One single thing. All right, enough. All right, let's get right to our show.

We're going to have Dr. Kelly Victor in just a minute. As I said, Thomas Renz, attorney from Ohio. He has got some interesting things he has uncovered. He has been, I think it probably wouldn't be an understatement to say, and I'll ask Tom if this is in fact the case, that he started as a moderate, much like myself, and uncovered some things that have been alarming

and has caused him to change his position a little bit. Please welcome Tom Renz. Doctor, good to meet you. Good to meet you as well. Would that be accurate that you started sort of, you know, moderate kind of questioning things and all of a sudden you've uncovered some things that were alarming? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, in fact, that's almost an understatement. Several years back, going back prior to COVID,

I remember one time and my wife will never let me forget this. She comes into the kitchen. She says, honey, so-and-so, some celebrity from Hollywood, is talking about the connections between vaccines and autism. And I said, Annie, I said, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. Vaccines are great. They do. These are wonderful things.

They keep people healthy. They keep them safe. And I was just absolutely astounded by the fact that someone said that. And fast forward, and I have not done the research on the autism links. So I can't speak to that as well as I can to some of these other things. But yeah, I was 100% pro-vaccine. I believed the medical establishment. I believed the science. And it wasn't until COVID that I shifted positions. Yeah, COVID, you know, I was looking at some emails from 2008, 2011, sort of cleaning up my Gmail.

And oh my goodness, it was like a different world back then. I really felt like I have been changed. I have lost something. And being naive may be the thing I lost. I'm still very pro-vaccine. I still vaccinate with mRNA vaccines in my elderly population. I do believe that we're doing some good with these things, but the mandates and the over-the-top declarations and the lack of transparency in the literature and in the commercial research, it has left me very, very concerned. So that's sort of where we

all, you know, I know you're a little bit further concerned, Kelly's much more concerned, and she and I kind of fight that out all the time. But at least we've all sort of at least come to terms with or at least we've come to understand that there is, A, a disturbingly cozy relationship between the regulators and the pharmaceutical industry in terms of taking jobs back and forth, A, and B, that these bureaucratic organizations are rigid and do not change and tend to take the position that the public can't handle the truth. Yeah. Well, you know, so the thing that was really kind of prompted me to get into this, right, is back in 2020, I was working on a master's in health science. Okay, so I'm an amateur scientist. You know, you old guys, you guys, you're the experts.

But I was taking my epidemiology and my biostatistics and things like that. And it was around the time that COVID was coming out. And so, you know, I mean, it's a master's in health science. So if there's something in the news, it's worth looking into. And so I started looking into it. And what I started seeing was everything that they were saying was misleading. Everything that the media was saying was not what you were finding if you dug into the hard data. You know, they were overstating the risk. They were overstating all sorts of things. And when I looked at it as a lawyer, when I start seeing asterisks, how many people are dying from this?

What's the case fatality rate? What's the reproduction rate? What are all these different things? When I started looking at this, well, I kept running into asterisks. The CDC, what do we got here? Asterisk. What do we got? Asterisk.

And so I'm a lawyer. And I'm my namesake, Doubting Thomas, right? I doubt everything. And so being the skeptic, I start looking. That's not enough for me to write something with an asterisk. And as I dug through, well, I kept finding misleading information on misleading information on misleading information. And you can double check my work on this doc. At the beginning of COVID, in that period of time before tests, any sort of laboratory test was really available. And the time that they were, they're working on

what they're going to do to diagnose it. There was a fair amount of time. And I, I wrote this down and I broke it down by regulation or by guidance, and there was a period of time where if you coughed when you died and you lived in an area with continuous ongoing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, you could, and it was recommended that you be called a COVID death. And that's because they had the epidemiological factor, they had the clinical factor, the cough. And so, I mean, you're a doctor, I'm not, but, you know, I mean, there's a lot of times when you're dying that you cough. So the miscategorization, you know,

to what extent was that happening? And then when you start incentivizing that miscategorization by passing bills where you're paying hospitals for COVID deaths, if they're called COVID deaths, and lifting the guidelines so you can call everything a COVID death, well, what are you going to get? You're going to get inflated numbers. Yeah. And in terms of the coughing, let's remind ourselves, the other thing that the press did was under-explained the risk to the elderly and over-emphasized the risk to a young, healthy person. And old people, when they die, cough and are short of breath. That's what happens all the time. So that's kind of interesting.

And I saw Vinay Prasad say something a couple of days ago where he said, you know, dying, a breast cancer death is similar to a COVID death. You don't really die of the infection and you don't really die of the cancer. All the epiphenomenon that gets triggered is really kind of what you die of. So it gets very complicated. Did you really die of COVID or did you die of a super infection or did you die of just a heart failure from something else being triggered? I get that. And I used to defend the hospitals. I don't know what to do anymore because I would say, look, we have to keep the hospitals open. And this is just a convention we're using to make sure they get reimbursed so they can stay open to treat COVID patients. And that was my thinking at the time. Like everything the government has done,

they kept doing it way beyond where it was appropriate. And then are not, like everything the government has done, though, they kept doing it way beyond where it was appropriate. And then are not, this is the part that drives me insane, not going back and doing the proper analysis. It's fine that you did it the way you did it, but now let's get, let's not consider that data as thus saith the Lord. Let's really try to find a way to figure out really what happened. Oh no, we're not going back. And the same is true of so many aspects to this epidemic. Well, here's the problem. And this is where I distinguish myself from the doctors, right? So I can't go into the science.

But in terms of sniffing out the skunk, if you will, that's part of my job, right? And so one of the things that caught me early on, and for the audience that doesn't know about this, when you get diagnosed with any sort of a disease, you get a diagnostic code. And that diagnostic code is supposed to be the same all over the world so that epidemiologists all over the world can study, you know, how disease is working, right? When COVID came out, they had two codes. They had U071 and U072. U071 was confirmed COVID. U072 was probable COVID. Now, when the United States adopted that convention, they only adopted U071. So any probable case was considered confirmed COVID in the United States, which drove up our numbers further. And what happened, Doc, is I got to the point where I

look at this as a lawyer, not a scientist. A lot of my best scientist friends, they have this approach and they always look at it through the lens of science where they say, well, listen, we're just trying to get to the truth, get to the fact of the matter. And my position as a lawyer is this. Well, what if somewhere along the lines, science is corrupted? What if they're lying? What if it's no longer science but propaganda? And as I started developing more and more evidence on this, when I see things like,

why wouldn't you include U071 and U072 as a diagnostic code? Why would you put out a document? Why would the National Center for Vital Statistics put out a document that said, we want you to call anything that looks like COVID, COVID. And if you don't, we're going to check on it, why you didn't. And if you do, and it's questionable, that's okay. All of these things led to what I believe is at least a preponderance of the evidence, if not approaching that reasonable doubt level, that this was an intentional process. You don't make these sort of mistakes. The scientists that I know and the scientists that you and I walk with and talk with, these are guys who don't make huge mistakes. And they certainly don't make epidemiological mistakes that a guy like me could pick out. So, you know, to me, it looked like a rat and smelled like a rat. Yeah. I'm just thinking about when Michelle

Walensky came out early and hard. We got to open schools. Fast forward a week, she's going, oh, no, no, I was just talking about what I was hoping would happen. I don't know what you're talking about here. I didn't say anything about schools. You saw these people being adulterated in real time. And these are scientists. I don't know, love to know somebody,

where's the journalist? Why aren't they there digging into what exactly happened? Just that transaction. What adulterated Rochelle Walensky in that particular issue that damaged so many children? Where are the journalists? It's disgusting. I'm looking at a page, an ICD-9 and now an ICD-11 page here. And I was thinking to myself, I've used U09 a little bit, which is sort of post-COVID, right? And I wonder how much U09 ended up being a U071. Because U09 is very speculative also.

And I'm just looking at all the different ways they organize this thing. It's pretty nutty. They have a U12 finally, which is an adverse reaction to the vaccine. I wonder who's looking at that data, but I'll tell you what, Tom, I want to bring Kelly in here a little early today. She's got lots of interesting questions too. I know there's some very dramatic cases that we want to kind of hear about and she wants to get into. I'm looking at, if you don't mind, I'm looking at the rumumble Rants where they're saying things like, hey, we're not in Kansas anymore. In other words, they want to see what, Tom,

you really are thinking. And a lot of Tom Rents fans in here, so they want to hear the goods. And we will see what you have to offer after this little break when we bring Dr. Kelly Victory in here. So let's go out to break, come right back, and we'll get into the heat. A lot of you have to offer after this little break when we bring Dr. Kelly Victory in here. So let's go out to break, come right back, and we'll get into the heat. A lot of you have been asking for more information about how to counter the adverse effects of the spike protein from COVID infections and the COVID vaccine. The spike protein is not your friend. Let's just say that. So I'm glad we have the wellness company Spike Support Formula as a sponsor,

especially since renowned internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, who's also chief scientific officer of the wellness company, is one of its champions. There's some very intriguing research around natokinase, which might be a way to take on the spike protein. Listen to this. So start, if you would, with talking about natokinase, how you got to that and where you see its application so with the viral infection or the vaccines the spike protein stays within the body and it's found in the heart the brain the vital organs and it's causing problems the japanese have been using this for heart and vascular disease now for 20 years it's safe it is a form of a mild blood thinner that it dissolves the spike protein nearly

completely spike support formula is the only product on the market containing natokinase, dandelion root, and a host of other antioxidants, all showing promise in helping you protect yourself and your family. To order this unique, specially formulated supplement, go to drdrew.com slash TWC. That is drdrew.com slash TWC.

Use code Drew at checkout for 10% off today. I recently discovered Paleo Valley. They have a line of products that align perfectly with the paleo dietary regimen. Goodbye to the limited rotation of eggs, burgers, and the standard fare. Hello to a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious. Paleo Valley offers a spectacular range of options, including 100% grass-fed beef sticks. They're packed with nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, glutathione, CLA, and bioavailable protein. Plus, keto-friendly, make for a great protein-rich snack on the go.

Paleo Valley's tasty beef sticks are not just 100% grass-fed, but also grass-finished, sourced from small domestic farms in the U.S. and flavored with real organic spices. They're also fermented, which means they contain natural probiotics that are great for gut health and they taste amazing. Try them out by heading over to drdrew.com slash paleovalley to get 15% off your first order today. Don't miss out on this opportunity to discover a brand that is perfect for your paleo lifestyle. President Trump recently issued a warning from his Mar-a-Lago home, quote, Our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world standard, which will be our greatest defeat, frankly, in 200 years. There are three reasons the central banks are dumping the U.S. dollar.

Inflation, deficit spending, and our insurmountable national debt. The fact is there is one asset that has bestowed famine, wars, political and economic upheaval dating back to biblical times, gold. And you can own it in a tax shelter retirement account with the help of Birch Gold. That's right, Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k, maybe from a previous employer, into an IRA in gold. And the best part, you don't pay a penny out of pocket. Just visit birchgold.com slash drew for your free info kit.

They'll hold your hand through the entire process. Think about this. When currencies fail, gold is a safe haven. How much more time does the dollar have? Birchgold has an A-plus rating

with Better Business Bureau and thousands of happy customers. I do not give financial advice and previous performance is no guarantee of future performance. Visit birchgold.com slash drew to get your free info kit on gold. That is B-I-R-C-H-T-O-L-D.com slash D-R-E-W. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. If this episode ends here, the rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv.

There's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk-benefit calculation. It is the mandate of public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population. This is uncharted territory, Drew. As always on our Wednesday, we welcome Kelly Victory. And Kelly, I give you Tom Renz. Thanks, Tom. So happy to have you here. I've been following your work very closely from the beginning of this pandemic debacle. And just when I think you can't come up or expose something any more stunning, lo and behold, you do. You uncover something else more horrific than the last thing. And our viewers know that I will rend it off. I'm the heat-seeking missile, and I will leave nothing on the table here, as Drew knows, too. I've been very, very

outspoken critic from the beginning of everything from the fact that they tried to act as if we were all at equivalent risk from this virus, that they wildly manipulated the statistics, the virus is real, the statistics are not. And one of the gravest errors in this entire pandemic response, and again, I don't think it was a mistake, I think it was purposeful, was the therapeutic nihilism that we lived through. The idea that there was nothing to treat this virus and that we should just watch people get sick and then when they turn blue, they should go to the hospital, where again, we did little or nothing. Kelly, I want to stop you real quick. Real quick. I just have to say this, and I'll let you roll on, but I'm not sure if you're aware,

but Annals of Internal Medicine this week was packed with good articles about early treatment. Fluvoxamine and Budesonide, excellent results. Annals now, as you and I have been saying all along, when the research, when literature goes all one direction, you know the editorial process or something is adulterated in the research. Now, Annals, God bless them, has stood up as being leaders. They are criticizing how vaccine observational studies are being done. They're saying, why don't you match controls when people are unvaccinated and follow forward? How hard is that? There's literally an article on that. The fluvoxamine and rudesinide. They also, two new monoclonal

antibodies looking good against Omicron. They came out with all of it. And they also had the balls to publish the Danish mass study. So they're clearly showing themselves to be leaders in this. And to your point, Kelly, I was with you on that. That's the thing I shall never get over, that our peers let patients go home until they were sick, until they died. You've got to be kidding. When there were so many options, why not steroids? What is so dangerous about giving some corticosteroid? What about inhaled steroid? Why is that anathema? So I'm going to go away. I'll let you go from there. I just had to say that. I apologize. Well, yeah, that's what we call a day late and a dollar short.

We knew from the beginning that there were multiple readily available, highly effective, inexpensive medications to treat this. That said, Tom, you took it one step, one giant leap forward. You went way beyond exposing therapeutic nihilism, the fact that we failed to treat people with medications that were available and have actually uncovered what you believe to be protocols that were intentionally harming people. That's where I'd like you

to start. Let's talk about that. It is one thing, egregious as it is, to fail to treat someone. Doing something actively to promote their demise is a whole other level of evil. Let's talk about that. Yeah. So when you and Dr. Drew talked about your colleagues and how you felt about this early on, while you guys were talking about that, I was one of a handful of lawyers in the country willing to do this. And I want to open by explaining why this is so important to me. It was one of the most difficult periods of my life.

Over and over again, thousands of phone calls from people begging me, my loved one is in the hospital. They won't let me see them. They won't let me try. They tell me that my loved one is going to die in three days. Why can't I try ivermectin? They tell me that there's no chance of my loved one recovering. Why can't I try hydroxychloroquine? Now, I don't even need to comment on whether these things work. It doesn't matter. The simple fact of the matter is, is that if your loved one is going to die and the hospital's telling you they're going to die, why would you deny an opportunity to try something that, you know, someone, I mean, even if it's a one in 10,000 chance that it works, why would you do that?

And I do believe we've got legislation that makes that an available option, right? Trump passed some. Well, interestingly, let me just interject for one second and talk about how ironic this is. The right to try legislation that was passed by Trump only applies to a drug that isn't FDA approved. Had hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin not been FDA approved, they would have been able to be used under the right to try legislation. It's specifically because they've been FDA approved, are known to be entirely safe for use in humans that we weren't allowed to use them under right to try. Talk about just a perverse irony.

It's that. Yeah. Well, and the interesting thing about that is, well, there's some interesting legal arguments that I think go along with that, but I'm going to avoid putting everybody to sleep with that. What I'm going to tell you, though, is that, you know, because to my mind, simply, listen, you've got two ways that that goes on, right? Because one of two things is true. Either it's FDA approved, so why can't we choose to do off-label? Or if you want to say, you know, it's not FDA approved for this, well, then right to try should kick in.

So in either event, legally, I would argue that you'd have every right to do this. And at the end of the day, what happened to my body, my choice? What happened to that? Where was that? At the end of the day, people had no choice. And I, for months, call after call, please save my loved one, save my this, save my that. You're the only attorney that'll do this. And it was so damaging to me. Over and over, I'd have, hey, you don't have to worry. My loved one's dead now. Hey, you don't have to worry. You couldn't get there fast enough.

It was one of the most, I didn't sign up to be a doctor. I didn't sign up for that. I had no idea that I was ever going to be in a position as an attorney where I had to be responsible for so many people dying because I couldn't get to helping them. And, you know, even when I could, it was a one in 10, maybe, where we were able to get the hospital to give them a shot or to do something or do anything. I mean, it was really a difficult time. So you've got to understand that I was really unhappy about this. And I kind of internally about to find some way to get justice on this but as an attorney my job isn't to I can't argue that the law is wrong I've got to

find a way to do what I do within the law as an advocate I advocate for changing the law all the time but as an attorney I have to work within it so what we do or what I've done is I've been working and watching and gathering info. And the one thing that legally we can do, you can't sue for a person that dies in the hospital from COVID. In almost every state, the hospital is given just blanket immunity, both federal and state. So it's very difficult, except for one thing, where it's intentional. Now, I've been working on this for quite some time, and I'm tipping my hand to any attorney out there that wants to use this, go for it, brother, because I can only take so

many cases. Now, let me ask you, if you're using a known cocktail of drugs with known interactions, at doses that exceed the known danger levels and thresholds, does that become intentional? I would argue that it does. It's a state-by-state analysis. So I've been looking on this intentional tort aspect of this, because if it's intentional, it's not that. And what we found over time, and you and Dr. Drew can both testify to this a lot better than I can, because you're the doctors.

And so I go to the doctors with expert opinion on this, but I've got a lot of it. Well, when we see people using drugs with known interactions, and I'm not talking about remdesivir. Everybody wants me to file the remdesivir case, and I agree that remdesivir is probably a disaster of a drug, but I'm talking about drugs that have been out for 20 years or longer and that have known interactions. Drugs that are known to suppress your breathing level and thus reduce your oxygen saturation, which would inherently suggest that there's a, they then would use to justify putting you on a respirator.

So we're talking about things like morphine, is that what you're talking about? Sedating people, over-sedating people with, let's call it, with morphine primarily, is the protocols that were used. Is that correct? Morphine and others. I mean, I've got a whole list of drugs that people have talked to me about. And the whistleblower that we're going to be getting to here that we're talking about is a PhD Stanford-educated pharmacist, right? So this isn't like someone who doesn't know.

She worked in big pharma. I think she did, it was related to clinical trials, went back to patient care because she was into that. I mean, this woman is a top-notch person. She knows her stuff. And, you know, her and a bunch of other people have talked to me about the misuse, overuse, you know, of drugs in various places. And so we knew or suspected this was going on for quite some time. Then my whistleblower comes forward and she's got these recordings, these recordings of conversations she has in the hospital. And the one in particular is with a nurse. And this nurse is on tape very clearly talking about how her floor, they were to do things she viewed as killing. We're killing the patients, she said. We're killing them.

And she said, no other floors want to do this. Well, no kidding. I would hope not. But taking steps, they know. And the whistleblower, she has no interest in being a public figure. She's asked me to speak for her. But she wants the information out because she finds it to be so wrong. So this whistleblower, she says to me, she says, listen, I come in one day. I talk to this nurse. How's your morning going? And he says, terrible, the night nurse didn't do her job.

And what she said is she said she believes that the night nurse's job was to OD the patient on morphine. And now this guy was grumpy because he had to go do it. These are allegations that are mind-blowingly serious, but if we look at it from a legislative perspective, if we look at it from the lawyer perspective, it makes total sense. I don't want to talk forever. Let me- Was this something that you found only in one isolated hospital, or was this a pattern of a protocol that you saw it happening as a

pattern across hospital systems so this protocol we are putting together evidence that suggests that this is something that that was occurring everywhere within this hospital system right And the thing about that is that this is a very big hospital system. This is the Ascension system, okay? And if this is occurring everywhere, that is a major, major issue. Now, here's the question. Can I prove that it's happening everywhere yet? And the answer is I can't prove it, but I can tell you, given the evidence that I've looked at related to this sort of treatment in hospitals around the country, I'm seeing very similar things. And it would be shocking to me if this was a coincidence you know let me let me though push back a little bit because it scares me that we're going to lose a therapeutic uh good if we're not careful here if that case that the

nurse was describing was a 35 year old with cytokine storm that's outrageous you take that case to the mat but it's an if it's-year-old with multi-system failure and no meaningful existence, in no way there's going to be meaningful existence down the road, only suffering, it's a very different clinical situation. One, morphine is a godsend for that individual who is only suffering with no probability of meaningful outcome. The 35-year-old, that's tantamount to murder. It's a lot different. So are you able to differentiate amongst these different cases as you look across what you're seeing? Well, and let me be clear. Let me agree with your pushback. I can't argue at all with what you said. Now, the issue, the only caveat I would make is when is it okay to hasten death? Now in palliative

care, we look at hasten death. Not even hasten, but when is it okay to do things for comfort that could hasten death is the question. And the hospital should have clear protocols on that. They should have clear protocols and the family should have absolute informed consent. They should have knowledge. They should have knowledge. They should be part of the decision, not locked out of a room and told they can't talk to people. So I'm with you on that. And I don't want to give morphine a bad name because it's not morphine that was the problem. The problem is, and understand that this clip with this nurse doesn't give you the specifics.

And so I'm not calling for the criminal prosecution of this hospital. What I'm calling for is an investigation. I believe that the AG needs to look and see, did this happen? Was there criminal action? Was it a 35-year-old with a long life to give? And she said, the way that she said it in the audio was as though this was an ongoing, continuous thing for an entire floor. So that would suggest numerous patients and all of them aren't going to be 95 and half dead. No, and she also, excuse me, she also went out of her way to say these patients weren't suffering, Drew.

This nurse pushed back and said, why are we being told to give them the morphine? They're fine. They're not suffering. They're not short ofine? They're fine. They're not suffering. They're not short of breath. They're fine. And we're still supposed to give them the morphine is what she said. And again, that is a very damning thing. And even in cases of all out, frankly, you know, hastened, you know, hastened death,

what euthanasia, whatever you want to call it, the family has to be very, very much the family and the patient very much involved in that decision-making. And that's not what I heard on these clips that Tom is discussing at all. And there's sort of another wrinkle in here too. If I were stuck on a ventilator long-term with COVID complications, I'd want a propofol. Thank you very much. And I didn't hear about that being used very often either. Well, this is the problem, right? So what we did see and what I know we saw, because I had probably a thousand people that I talked to over time, you know, begging me for help saying, you know, the hospital won't let us make decisions. Do you know how many instances I had of people calling me and telling me that, you know, my brother's sister loved one is in the

hospital. They put my, put the phone on speaker. The doctors didn't know it. And they were in there screaming at you. You're going to die. You're going to die. You're going to die if you don't do what we tell you. I mean, the horror stories.

And let me, let me bring this around and bring some, some additional credibility to this, right? Because you may be saying, and for your watchers, the listeners, you may be saying, well, this, you know, this Renz guy, he's a conspiracy theorist. Okay. Well think about this though. So we have a situation where legally, what we did was we said, listen, if you have a COVID patient, we're going to give you extra money. So if your patient is diagnosed and called a COVID patient, then if your patient goes through certain treatment protocols, remdesivir, ventilator, et cetera, et cetera, each one of those, you're going to get an

additional amount of money. Then if your patient dies with COVID, with, not from, well, you get even more money, right? So what we did was we created a financial incentive, not if you get better from COVID, you get a bonus. It's if you die from COVID, you get a bonus. And was we created a financial incentive, not if you get better from COVID, you get a bonus. It's if you die from COVID, you get a bonus. And so we create an incentive, a major financial incentive. Then on top of that, we throw in this immunity thing. We say, well, and not only do you get a big incentive if the patient dies, but we're also going to make it so that you can't be sued for killing them, even if it looks like you did. You have to actually show willfulness, willfulness kind of intent. It has to be intentional. So they made the bar so high that it's nearly impossible.

And you throw in the finance, we incentivize murder to my mind. Yes, I agree with you. And I think there's definitely something there. I think there's more than just smoke there. And I hope that you continue to dive into this. I've been reporting on the perverse financial incentives from the very, very beginning. And I think it's largely what drove the falsification of the statistics. Let's dovetail this, Tom, into another bombshell that you came out with, which is exposing these, for lack of a better term, fake or not qualified, not truly certified doctors and nurses coming largely, it sounds like, out of a school or schools in Florida. Can you explain what you found there? Wow. What is this? Oh my goodness. Oh boy. Yeah. So, so this is a, this is a DOJ investigation. I just found that they were doing it. Operation Nightingale. And what they were doing is

apparently this university was handing out fake degrees, and then these nurses were taking their degrees, getting their boards or whatever, and then going to be nurses. Here's where this really becomes troubling. And I want to be real clear. I always distinguish between speculation and something I can prove. So we know that this is a legitimate issue because we've got the DOJ paperwork talking about doing this, right? But what we don't know is details beyond that. Here's what I've been told, and understand that my job has been for the last three years to do everything possible to collect data that I can use in court or elsewhere to fight this COVID thing. And I've done that. So we've been told that there was a major, major, major shortage of doctors and nurses during COVID. We weren't told why so many

quit all of a sudden. But when you talk to the doctors and nurses that quit, you find numerous people saying, well, we were treating patients terribly. They were asking me to do things I didn't feel were ethical. They were pushing us to do things that I didn't agree with. So I quit. Well, that exacerbated, you know, I mean, we always had a nursing shortage. It exacerbated it. So you got to fill that somehow, right?

Well, enter this issue. Now, I'm not suggesting this was planned or coordinated, but it certainly seemed to create an opportunity for something like this to happen. Now, if you bring in doctors and nurses that are not appropriately trained, and you've got them working in a hospital where you have a situation where the hospital administration and you guys both know hospital administrators are not always doctors or nurses. They're frequently business people, especially now where that business, those business people are pushing the doctors and nurses to maximize profit, which in this case means by ensuring that you've got COVID diagnoses all the way through death, are you going to really do your due diligence on these nurses? Are you going to be happy that you've got nurses that may or may not be capable or qualified to question you

or question what's happening? That's really the bottom line here. Just to put some numbers on this, Thomas, you know, that's really the, the, the bottom line here. And let's just, just to put some, put some numbers on this time. It's my understanding. We're not talking about a handful, a couple of dozen. We're talking about what? 7,600, almost 8,000 people. This is not a handful of people drew.

We're talking, you know, upwards, um, of, of 7,000, 7,600 nurses, quote unquote, who got fake degrees and went to hospitals in we don't know how many different states, at least half a dozen states, including places like Delaware and Florida and Texas, and were working as nurses during the height of the pandemic. And I think, as Tom said, when you have these perverse financial incentives on top of it, I think we have the makings of a perfect storm. What do you know, Tom, since you know way more about this than I do, with regard to where these people came from and got their degrees? It was a school in Florida. Is that not correct? Yeah, I believe there might have been three schools that were doing this, but I know there was at least one in Florida. And one of the other things I've heard reports on, but I haven't been able to verify, are issues with doctors who have credentials from suspect foreign institutions. And I can't say that I know that, you know,

it's not confirmed, but this is a credible thing that I'm looking into and trying to find information on. You know, this whole thing, it's just everywhere you look, and I really want to, and I'm interested in, I'm actually interested in your perspectives on this, right? So everywhere I look on COVID, I find new layers of fraud or misleading information or disinformation. Now we were called disinformation. We were called liars. We were called this, we're called that. But I keep finding more and more things and these things are inarguable, right? So the myocarditis and things like that, and I don't know if you guys are aware of this. So those were listed as adverse events of special interest in an FDA presentation that was leaked in October, November of 2020 before the drugs were ever out there.

Correct. Why weren't they in the side effect sheet? I understand that they tried to distinguish the difference between serious adverse events of special interest and side effects. But at the end of the day, that certainly seems like something that's distinguished without substance, right? And as we go forward- There were many side effects that they knew about before the vaccine program was launched, not only the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis,

but also for example, the skeletal anomalies that occurred in fetuses. They knew about a number of these severe side effects ahead of time, including fertility issues, and those things were withheld from the public. This is my question. I really think that panic, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, perverse motivations, all the financial motivations, I think these – I just can't see it any other way. These things held sway over people that are supposed to be even-minded and ability to be objective. And they launched into the panic from the beginning. are supposed to be even-minded and ability to be objective.

And they launched into the panic from the beginning. And if you're in a state of complete emotional dysregulation, you're going to make some terrible choices, which they obviously did. Again, to me, I'm still living with going into people's offices and hospitals seeing six feet saves lives. I have to live with that knowing that that's total bullshit uh that was invented out of thin air and a panic uh and that everything was done in a panic everything and i think they convinced themselves they were doing the right thing and that anybody else that wasn't doing the right thing was evil

so they refused to listen to anybody else. It was this bizarre, it's the mass formation again that got going even in our profession. Well, I, you know, I agree with that. And I want to, I want to get Tom, I want to get your thoughts on this time,

but I will put out there my, my side of it. And then you can sort of, you know, weigh in. It wasn't mistakes my government made. It was lies. My government told me there is a big difference between making

an error and lying. And the next thing I want to get into is this issue with the Wuhan Institute and Peter Daszak and EcoHealth and all of that. So while I will grant you the public was largely bold. Yeah, me too. The public was largely in the grip of panic and fear and being driven there by all the propaganda. The people making the decisions were not in that place. I think they knew damn well that they were lying. So while I will grant you that John Q. Public and maybe some small portion of the medical practitioners out there were caught up in the grip of panic and fear. The rest of them were out and out lying, and there's a big damn difference. I got to say, I'm watching my peers, though, still wear masks,

still wear masks, still insist on six feet distance. And it's funny, I know. And when I brought it up with my peers three months ago, I said, what are you doing with the mask? And one of them said, well, I don't want to get COVID. I don't want COVID. And I was like, all right, whatever whatever i don't not gonna have the conversation about how masks don't work a week later she got covid and she still says the same thing about the masks yeah okay so i mean i'm trying to be polite uh you know i'm a lawyer though so it's it's hard

um you know the mask thing is one of those things that really just sets me on edge because it's just honestly this paper mask that has these giant gaps is somehow going to keep you safe from a virus that's floating around in the air literally one of the most mind-blowing things i've ever heard but here's the thing or you're gonna pull it down and eat yeah we're fine we're fine here what are we doing i'm gonna hold here's my mask I'm going to just hold my hand up. But here's the thing. When we look at motive, I think we've got to distinguish between some different parties here, right? I think there are a lot of very good doctors, scientists, nurses that I agree with you, Drew, would have been very much pulled into this panic concern. And you remember, you know, a lot of these people, they get their information. Not everybody's pulling out all the journals and

studying the epidemiology and the statistics and determining whether the study was well-performed or not. They're looking at the conclusion and that's pretty much it, the summary of the study. If they're looking at anything other than the info sheet that they're getting from the hospital administration and or the CDC. So a lot of these guys, I think you're right. They didn't know they were panicked. They believed their partners. They believed their hospital administration. They believed whatever.

And by the time they realized how badly they'd been lied to, well, it's kind of hard to look back and realize the destruction you caused if you're a good person who's committed to saving lives and you find out that you were used and misused and misled into taking steps that killed people. So I think there's a lot of good people that made bad mistakes, but that's wearing a little bit thin three years in. Now, the other thing, though, is you've got the people who are outright liars, right? The government was outright liars. I've got document on document on document on document. I've got more evidence than we could do if we had four hours here showing, you know, I mean, Anthony Fauci had the Project Salus document on his desk

while he was telling us that, you know that it's 99% of the people in the hospital are unvaxxed. Well, the Project SALIS document at that time, which I believe was October, November of 21, I might have the date wrong, said that 60% of hospitalizations were in fully vaxxed and 70% of new cases were in fully vaxxed so Anthony Fauci was outright lying he knew he was lying but he continued doing it and you know why now the problem that I have and the thing that I'd be curious you know to get you guys's opinions on you know to me this is some lawyer wisdom you know you. Once someone's lied to me, I'm suspicious. Once they've lied to me 50 times, I just think they're a liar. I don't trust anything they say.

And so at this point, when they tell me there's this benefit or that benefit to the vaccine or this benefit or that benefit to masks vaccine or this benefit or that benefit to masks, social distancing. I don't care what they say. I frankly don't trust anything that they say until I've had the opportunity to review the research myself, run it by my friendly doctor experts that I know are not bought off, and really evaluate it. And I argue and debate with these doctors so they can teach me what I don't know. But frequently what we're finding out is the policy of not trusting a liar is a good policy. Yeah, no kidding. And I will tell you, you call it lawyer wisdom, but I will call it good common

sense. That's exactly right. And one of the things that causes me great concern about exactly what you're saying, Tom, and I've said this from the beginning, is that God help us when we need the public to pay heed to us at public health time, because there will be a next time. There will be a next crisis. And we have undermined the confidence of the public in public health and in our institutions such that I think people will not listen at all. We have driven vaccine hesitancy to an all-time high. We may never recover from that. There are people who I know who won't go to the doctor at all, who don't listen to anything that physicians say any longer because they know that they've been duped. Before we run out of time, I do want to give you

a chance to talk about my favorite, Fauci's evil sidekick, Peter Daszak. And I've been reporting on this again. It was one of the things that got me banned from Twitter and YouTube very, very early on was talking about the connection between Anthony Fauci and EcoHealth Alliance and how they used that sham to funnel U.S. taxpayer dollars over to the lab in Wuhan. So talk about that. I know that you actually have a case that's been filed against Peter Kasich. So take it from there. Yeah, the first of many. The nice thing about that case is that anyone who has COVID is a potential client in that. So if they don't like the way this is done, we can redraw it and file it again and keep going until we get this done. Because at the end of the day,

here's what we know at this point that I feel very confident saying conclusively. COVID was created in a lab. It was created with intent. These guys were doing whatever they were doing. They were doing it for grant money, for whatever. I don't care what they were doing. From the lawyer's perspective, this works. The way that you want to look at this is if I build a dynamite factory in downtown New York City, right in Manhattan, and I'm doing my thing and I take every precaution in the world to make sure that it's the safest dynamite factory that it could be, but that dynamite factory still blows up, that's what's called an abnormally dangerous activity. So I'm on the hook for that. Working with coronavirus is legally considered an abnormally dangerous activity. So you're on

the hook. Now, when you throw on top of that, the fact that these guys didn't have the proper safety protocols, they weren't checking on safety, they weren't doing anything related to safety. I mean, you have an absolute recipe for disaster. And I think one of the things that we really all need to be asking about in addition to that is we're talking about very advanced, complex bioengineering techniques, right? To modify a virus or to perform this gain-of-function work on a virus, that's complicated. You can't just do that in your home lab. Why would we do this gain-of-function work in a lab that everybody knows is tied in with the CCP, that we know is part of the CCP bioweapons development program.

And when the CCP has been talking for decades on record about the possibility of using bioweapons against the United States, why would you do that? And do you think that we did that without approval from some government agencies? Do you think that the technology that was transferred from people like Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak to China, the technology necessary to build advanced viruses, do you think that that was done without government approval? Do you think that no one knew that they were doing that? I think that's a bit absurd to suggest that. And I'm very curious as to why, you know, as we're doing these committees and investigations in Washington, that they're not getting into that question and who approved it and what entities were involved and whose job it was to know.

There's no question. I don't agree with much that Barack Obama did. But one of the things he did under his watch was put a ban on gain of function research back in 2014, 2015. And so there's no question that this gain of function research was already taking place in the United States. But Anthony Fauci, with all of his hubris that he embodies, simply said, well, the heck with that. If we can't do it here in the United States, we'll simply transfer it over to the Wuhan virology lab and we'll push it through this Shell Corporation EcoHealth Alliance so that we kind of shield it from the public's eye. But I'm with you, Tom can't see how uh that was was not obvious to multiple people in the federal government possible one possible explanation one because i always try

to understand you know kelly i tried to understand the other side of the table and the only thing i can imagine that it was could be could be i'm not saying it is the only possible thing that could have made this okay was an elaborate counter espionage operation. In other words, that this was some sort of espionage to undermine what they were doing at Wuhan with somehow. It's the only possible explanation that I could live with. Also, one other thing about Barack Obama.

Let's not forget that he did not do lockdowns with H1N1. And I heard Michelle Obama talking recently, and she said, well, we had the advantage during the pandemic of living with a president that made a decision and who went through a pandemic. And I thought, we need to hear from him. He should be critical. He should come out and criticize what happened in this pandemic versus how he managed the one before. Well, I'll tell you what, at the risk of having you banned from everything, I'll avoid saying some things. We have substantial evidence that that counter-espionage theory might have a little more weight to it than what people would like to think. And here's the thing, though.

Interesting. Here's the thing, though. At. Here's the thing, though. At the end of the day, did we really win on that one, given how many people are now dead from COVID and all the trouble, all the shutdown? And if that is the case, and I'm just speculating here. You like how I do that? But I'm just speculating here. You know, if that was the case, I would think that those guys that were behind that would do anything that they could to shift blame and dodge and make sure that was covered up.

Because we wouldn't want any government agencies that have three letters to be blamed for an espionage program that went bad and resulted in millions of people, global catastrophe, strife, all these things, especially when it's one so dumb is to provide advanced biotech to a country that says we want to use bioweapons against you. I mean, that just plainly stupid to me. Right. Doing gain-of-function research with your greatest geopolitical foe, what could possibly go wrong? But we have email traffic, if I'm not mistaken, between Peter Daszak and Fauci, for example, talking specifically about it and saying, we need to squash all of this talk about the Wuhan lab. I mean, we have the proverbial smoking guns, right?

Many of them. Many of them. Many of them. I mean, you know, I don't know. I don't know that there's much more that I could do to have an open-shut case on this. It's just figuring out how the court wants to hear it and then recognizing that the court is going to be hit with just massive political pressure. I mean, Big Pharma loves gain-of-function work. I mean, and here's the thing.

Gain-of-function work, you've got to understand, it's very controversial. And, you know, I'm personally completely against it. But the thing about this is, and I would like to fill your listeners in on this, because there's a lot of this nonsense out there. And you'll hear a lot of people talk about this, and they'll use the word bioweapon. And I want to explain why you'll hear that from time to time. So gain-of-function research is frequently categorized as what's called dual-purpose research. And dual-purpose research means that it's something

that can be used for good or for bad, right? So if I'm building a more dangerous disease to study it to create a cure for that more for bad, right? So if I'm building a more dangerous disease to study it to create a cure for that more dangerous disease, then presumably that's for good, right? But if I'm building a more dangerous disease, it's still a more dangerous disease. And so that could potentially be called

under the rules of law, a bioweapon. So when you hear people on one side of the debate or the other talking about it that way, you know, it's, was COVID meant to be a bioweapon? I don't have any evidence to prove that. But was it a bad decision? Oh yeah, it was a bad decision. And I can say on the, on the, we have the CCP side, we do have some people that are stepping up and saying at least they were developing it as a bioweapon. I do want to interrupt for a second and get an attempt to get some calls in here. Siobhan, you're there. I've got you up.

Do you have a question or a comment? Yes. Hey, Drew. Thank you for calling on me. Two comments. One is the question asked about the AEs of special interest. I just want to point out, as someone who's worked in drug development, AE of special interest doesn't necessarily mean that it is associated with the drug.

It doesn't imply causality. In fact, the pharmaceutical company will do everything they can to list that as an AE of special interest and then try to dissuade the regulators from viewing it as associated what goes against what your guest said or not against but what supports what your guest said is that in 2021 and the original NDA application the FDA then pointed out they say based on the myocarditis signal, they asked the, I think it was Pfizer, to conduct more post-marketing studies. So I think that is kind of cool.

Isn't this exactly what happened with Vioxx? Didn't they learn they're the same company? It's exactly what happened with Vioxx. Exactly what happened. And so I think when you look at that AE of special interest, you can argue that wasn't necessarily something that the FDA was worried about initially. But then they were when they actually when you look at that, I think August or September 2021 document, they asked the pharmaceutical manufacturer to do three post-marketing studies, none of which have come to light. So that's really fascinating. And nobody seems to be interested in asking where the hell are those studies.

And my other point is, you know, last year, kind of speaking to your guest's point about what the hospitals are doing and how they're run by administrators with no medical background. I suffered COVID in June of 2020, June of 2022, I think. And I received a letter from my hospital saying, hey, it's time for your booster and boosters are mandatory. And I said, oh, I just had COVID. Here's my test result. And they said, oh, that's very good. You should get a booster in, you have four weeks to get a booster. And I said, oh, that's very good. You should get a booster in, you have four weeks to get a booster. And I said, says who? I'm just recovering from an infection. They said, oh, says we, that's hospital policy. And I said, no, no, I refuse to. There's absolutely no evidence for getting a booster when I'm recovering from infection. And they said, why don't you speak to infection control? True story. And I said, I don't need to speak to infection control. I am infectious disease. And they said, oh, it doesn't matter. That's our

policy. And at that point I was like, oh my God, this is the stupidest thing I've seen. And I was this close to say, I will not work here. There's no reason that there's nothing scientific about what is happening. And we devolved into a bureaucratic state on every level. It's all turtles down. And this is, I think, a lot of physicians were so turned off because it's like, you can't tell, I'm a doctor and you're telling me I need a vaccine when I'm post-convalescent with the infection. That makes zero sense.

And it's one thing if you were a pediatrician or if you were an endocrinologist or whatever, you were a foot surgeon or something, but you're an infectious disease internist, and you're the one that should be determining policy and best care practices for your patients and your family and yourself. So be it. And so I have to get an exception letter. This stupidity is never-ending. I have to get an exception letter from one is stupidity is never ending. I have to get an exception letter from one of my colleagues. And he's like, well, we agree he doesn't need to. And then they make

me sign a letter saying that if I don't get a booster in whatever time, in six months, then I will have to subject myself to weekly testing, which is another level of stupidity in and to itself. And at that point, I was like, you know what? If they decide to fire me for not getting a booster, so be it because at that point, I was like, I am done with putting up with bullshit. There's no reason for anybody to put themselves up. I stand up, my friend.

It's time. It's time not to be sheep. I'm putting you back in the audience speaking of sheep. Thank you for that call, Shivan. I appreciate it. It is time for everyone to stand up. And I do feel one of the reasons I was interested in talking to Tom is I feel like in addition to not just being so passively compliant, that must stop, people's lives were ruined by that. I feel like the other thing is we've got to sort this stuff out in the courts, like aggressively.

Yeah. Well, I guess that was my last question I want to, as the clock winds down here, Tom, that I would like to end on is, you know, given the amount of time you've spent in Congress, the number of people you've spoken to, where do you see this going in the courts? You know, we have a few people who have been outspoken, whether it's a Ron Paul, or excuse me, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, a few people, but it is a handful. The rest of Congress seems to have their heads in the sand and is supporting this. They aren't informed themselves, let alone they aren't fighting it. Where do you see this going? What are our chances of fighting this out successfully in the courts?

You want the political correct answer or the real answer? No, I want an answer. Your answer. Well, I'm going to just give you my answer. That's all I give. So the courts will eventually work. It's going to take more time. When I brought my first case, I had hundreds, I believe thousands of citations, all scientific peer-reviewed things. I mean, everything you can imagine. And they told me the case wasn't plausible. I mean, it was absolutely ridiculous. It was dead right. But I want to draw a parallel for y'all. And I think this will help you guys understand the legal perspective, right? Do you guys remember, and I don't care where anybody stands on the issue,

I'm not trying to be political about this, but do you remember gay marriage when it first started popping up in the courts? So when this first started popping up in the courts, every gay marriage case got thrown out immediately. They said, 10th Amendment, none of our business, get out. And that's how the federal courts dealt with it. And this happened for a very long time. And so many cases got thrown out, just absolutely ignored. And you got to understand the nature of the courts. The courts are very slow to shift. It's the way that they're built, right? Now, there's some special issues that have made it even slower with COVID, such as how many judges have a daughter or a son or a brother or a

sister that's a doctor who's telling them, no, no, no, this is all real. You got to follow CDC. So we've had to really work hard to wake up the doctors and shift the culture. And much like the gay marriage thing, along with the cases that they filed, they also had a huge, huge, huge push publicly. Remember Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, all the lovable, affable gay characters who we saw and we appreciated their shows and what have you, that were brought to the public to get people to see this in a different light. All of this happened. And in the same way, we're going through the same process with the COVID litigation. OK, we had to get to where there was credibility. We had to keep bringing this to the courts.

We had to do it in different ways, figure out what way the courts wanted to hear it. And judges don't like to be told that they're biased or affected by outside sources. But I'm just going to tell you, I've got several hundred pages of documents sent to me from sources inside the federal court system showing me the, I'm sorry, but frankly, disinformation that was sent to federal judges around the country during COVID. You know, they were told all the same lies we were, but they were told it directly by the CDC, which, you know, federal judges work in the federal system. So they're likely to take, you know, view that as a colleague or, you know, someone giving them good advice. Now the CDC, it turns out has frequently been the source of most of the lies and I've caught them in that. But when you've got one, you know, random nobody attorney from Ohio going into court and telling you, Hey, all your colleagues at the CDC are liars.

Here's the citations. I can prove it, but they're all liars. Versus the billions of dollars, the credibility of the Harvard doctors and the Yale doctors and the institutions and the CDC and this and that and other, it takes time to demonstrate, no, we were right. We were right. And so we keep pushing that. But I'm going to tell you the bigger problem. You mentioned Rand Paul and Ron Johnson and a few of the good guys. The number of good guys is very slim. And you've got to understand that I approach my position in this a little bit differently than most lawyers. When Make Americans Free Again and some of these other groups said, hey, can you help us free our country? What I did was I looked at this and I said, okay, so you're asking me to create change

because some of what we have going on here is actual law and it's not illegal. It's not invalid. It's not unconstitutional. It's just bad law. And we can have bad law. But if you want to get rid of bad law that is constitutional, that's politics, right? So what we did was we hit this from multiple directions. We pushed to try and educate the public. We filed lawsuits, but we've also pushed to educate people that we're going to push this politically. That has been the most difficult thing because at the end of the day, ethics are everything to me. I'm not going to buy off a politician. I couldn't if I wanted to. I don't have that much money. So what I mean, we raise money to just to keep our lights on. So we're not in a position to buy any politicians.

But big pharma, we've printed trillions of dollars to give to the pharmaceutical companies. And that money then gets filtered back in the form of lobbying money, right? So pharma can spend a billion dollars on lobbying because if they're going to make $100 billion off of that billion dollars, they end up ahead. And so what's happened is, is we've had numerous instances where house reps, senators, state and federal have said to me, listen, Renz, we know you're right. We know this, but pharma has outright told us if we oppose you, we will not get elected again. They'll spend, they don't care what they have to spend.

And so you can take me for my word at that or not. I don't care whether anybody believes me or not, because I'm not going to ever burn my sources on that. But we've heard this from multiple people in multiple places on the state and federal level. And so at the end of the day, you've got to understand, Dr. Drew, you mentioned at the beginning, the revolving door between pharma and, you know, the regulation, the regulators. Well, yeah, yeah. I mean, that's absolutely true. And the politicians are aware, and we've now given pharma so much money that we've made them so much more powerful politically that it's really a bad situation for we the people

because now we're asking we the people uh you know these politicians to stand for we the people against basically a goliath and you know politicians aren't known for the you know being the the most uh principled oh well we're gonna have to leave it yeah have to leave it there. Kelly, finish your thought. I was going to say, we have Bobby Kennedy joining us again on Monday. And I'll tell you, of all people, he has been, Big Pharma is in his crosshairs. And I am right there with him. So I'll tell you, Tom, thank you.

Yeah, he's a great guy. We're going to talk about that. Tom, you are a godsend. And I don't say that, that, that lightly. I, what you are doing is so meaningful to this, to this campaign. It's not just about COVID. That's been the focus, but you really are exposing a level of corruption that I think Americans need to see. We need to expose it and we need to fight this one through to the end. So fellow Ohioan to another, thank you for joining us. I really, really appreciate you doing this. Yes. Yes. That's been a great honor. Yes, I have a really quick question before we wrap up since we have an attorney on screen who's doing this stuff.

So is there any merit at all to a group of people pursuing a class action false advertising lawsuit against these pharmaceutical companies that are advertising safe and effective, but didn't actually do that? Quiet, quiet. Caleb, that's for next conversation. We'll see. He'll update us on that next time. We might be working on some of that. Okay. We'll see. He'll update us on that next time. But I love leaving this right here because Kelly and I are going to pick it up with RFK Jr. on Monday. And he is saying some very provocative things that, you know, obviously, as you know, I

don't agree with everything he says, but I love that he is mixing it up with some of the things he's saying right in this zone. So, Tom, you've left us in the perfect spot. We will look to you in the future for some updates and maybe even some assistance in some of these things we're fighting. But we thank you for being here today. And then Kelly, we'll see you on Monday at three o'clock where we'll pick it up with RFK

Jr. Three o'clock Pacific time. And tomorrow I'll be with Jordan Schachtel, three o'clock again, Pacific. See you all then. Thanks Tom. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky.

As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving.

Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published. If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me. Call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com slash help.